4 or 5 hours a sleep a night


Recommended Posts

you sem to forget thta noone is talking to you. You are you and this is a general forum. HUMANS need 8-10 hours of sleep. If you care to argue that, I'm sure the data leans my way.

No one is talking to me?...okay-well, seeing as this is a forum, I think he is talking to everyone, and well-everyone includes me I am pretty sure...and well, seeing by your response to my post, it would be pointless to argue with you, as I feel that 90% of the posters in this thread have already explained to you why you were wrong.

I say rubbish. Not refuting the scientific evidence or anything, but I've been going on no more than 4 or 5 hours of sleep a night since high school (freshman at university now), and I've been just fine. I'm in shape, and in good health.

It's pretty commonly said that you need 8 hours, but if you're fine with less, why waste the time sleeping more?

No one is talking to me?...okay-well, seeing as this is a forum, I think he is talking to everyone, and well-everyone includes me I am pretty sure...and well, seeing by your response to my post, it would be pointless to argue with you, as I feel that 90% of the posters in this thread have already explained to you why you were wrong.

Like i said. the exeption proves the rule. NOONE IS TALKING ABOUT YOU. i am speaking generally. but thank you for being the exeption.

Everyone’s individual sleep needs vary. In general, most healthy adults are built for 16 hours of wakefulness and need an average of eight hours of sleep a night. However, some individuals are able to function without sleepiness or drowsiness after as little as six hours of sleep. Others can't perform at their peak unless they've slept ten hours. And, contrary to common myth, the need for sleep doesn't decline with age but the ability to sleep for six to eight hours at one time may be reduced. (Van Dongen & Dinges, Principles & Practice of Sleep Medicine, 2000)

Edited by Qarth

I believe that needing eight hours is an average, something most people would do well on. Psychological experiments suggest that it is possible to wean yourself down to four hours and still be healthy.

Personally, I need alot of sleep, at least 8 hours. At sixth form I could manage on six hours but when I was depressed I could sleep the clock round.

One sec, I will PM you the ebook. I LIVE on 4-5 hours of sleep and I am in perfect health.

Here is the link, I am suprised it is still up to be honest.

http://rapidshare.de/files/2802524/powerfu...ackage.zip.html

If a mod feels this is breaking the rules, please remove it.

The greatest thing I've ever read. I suggest everyone to read it. Couldn't sleep tonight and stubmled across this thread and downloaded that and read it all. 10/10.

you are correct. Random Eye Movement, sleep. REM.

It would be good for you to get 8 hours. 4 to 5 is not that great for you. REM Sleep takes ~3 hours to get into sometimes, so you basically arnt getting it much at all. Which is the true deep sleep that you need.

Rapid Eye Movement.

;)

Like i said. the exeption proves the rule. NOONE IS TALKING ABOUT YOU. i am speaking generally. but thank you for being the exeption.

Are you like 12? And by the way, it's EXCEPTION, not EXEPTION...perhaps you should sleep more so you can stay better alert in your spelling class.

It's always better to err on the side of too much sleep as opposed to too little sleep. I survived on 4-6 hours a night for a while, and I actually feel more refreshed after 5 hours than after 7 hours.

There's no denying that too little sleep is bad, however.

Are you like 12? And by the way, it's EXCEPTION, not EXEPTION...perhaps you should sleep more so you can stay better alert in your spelling class.

No you silly bitch, I'm 23. Either way, trying to make an arguement out of what YOU do is stupid. Good luck though!

Idiot.

last semester i used to wake up at 6 and go to sleep at 1 - 2 am..

i was up about 19 hours a day without napping Mon - Sat... Sunday was my sleep catch up day.. i'd sleep for about 12 - 14 hours..

i dont like sleeping too much.. i think it takes up too much time..

sometimes when i go to Vegas we don't get a hotel because we don't sleep for 2 days straight.. then we drive back home sunday afternoon.. then sleep until monday morning.

No you silly bitch, I'm 23. Either way, trying to make an arguement out of what YOU do is stupid. Good luck though!

Idiot.

First off, your point was terrible and makes no sense...leading me to think you are very uneducated.

Secondly, judging by your comebacks and responses, you are probably without many (if any) friends and very lonely.

And lastly, there is no way that you have a girlfriend...

Well I'm about to sleep 30 minutes now before I go to work... It happens many times.

I will drink a lot of coffey at work, try hard not to fall asleep on the bus, then I will try not to fall asleep before 7 PM and then I'll wake up at 3 PM the day after.

when i was in school last semester, towards the end i would normally get 4-5 hours of sleep a night. i got the flu 2 times in that month (can only recall having the flu 1 time prior to that). after a while of the 4-5 hours of sleep a night, i just slept and slept. it got to the point where alarm clocks wouldnt wake me up someone had to physically shake/tap me.. i set 1 alarm clock, then i set 2. slept through both most of the time (rang constantly ranging from 30mins to an hour).

right now i work 7-7 for 28 days then im off for 5 days. i get around 5-7 hours of sleep a night. if i slept more i would be cutting off all my social life (pretty minimal how it is) i wake up fine in the morning so its all fine :) works fine for me, sometimes i am tired during the day.

just depends on who you are and if it works with you i guess if it feels good do it ;)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!